Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump

[Dadwen]

The point is that some of the evidence that has been seen by Congress was considered damning enough to push for an investigation into the matter and even certain high status GOP members even "turncoated" over it.

It's also not so much about effective sway over the election as it is that Russia getting involved period, intending to aid only one party, and the party who was the recipient of the help knowing the evidence but covering up the ordeal.

The goal of the CIA releasing the leaks now, if they actually are as damaging as some Congressmen and the CIA claim they are, isn't to undo the election but is instead to push the electors to change their votes to a different candidate, such as Romney, without running into a potential constitutional crisis if the information was released after inauguration.

Unless someone in one party or the other did the hacking or had a direct involvement in it, I can't see anything coming of it, again if the media was dumb enough to release it, *they are mostly useless anyway IMO, the only involvement that should come from the CIA is helping both party lock down their servers better, ya the Russia may have only released info that may have benefited them but any other hacker that was pro for either party could have done the same. *saying no outside country could effect or elections is a pipe dream they could have released BS news stories in their papers saying Hillery ate the flesh of young children and that info would have influenced someone here. again the only thing I could see coming from there is the Parties need to get their security straightened out (or learn better than sending damming info across servers).

[Elegiac]

And everyone else was trying to help Hillary, who gives a shit?

'Everyone else' wasn't doing very illegal things in order to get Hillary elected.

[Fadeslol]

A) You don't know its false information.
B) They're reporting on a CIA report. Not presenting the CIA's report as fact.



Haha bullshit. You're accusing the NYT of slander for not just doing what the RNC told them.

Also, don't trust the CIA because of fake wars.....but take the RNC at their word....

HMMMMM

- - - Updated - - -

Anyway, this is boring, and stupid is on full parade this afternoon so fuck it.

A) "Secret assessment" from sources. Same Washingtonpost that had to appended "Russians spreading Propaganda"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-findings.html

B) There is no CIA report, all it said is "secret assessment" no names, no evidences. All propaganda.

3) NYT puts out a fake news story that Russians hacked RNC. No sources/no evidence.

CIA are known liars. They got Americans killed.

[Bullettime]

Unless someone in one party or the other did the hacking or had a direct involvement in it, I can't see anything coming of it, again if the media was dumb enough to release it, *they are mostly useless anyway IMO, the only involvement that should come from the CIA is helping both party lock down their servers better, ya the Russia may have only released info that may have benefited them but any other hacker that was pro for either party could have done the same. *saying no outside country could effect or elections is a pipe dream they could have released BS news stories in their papers saying Hillery ate the flesh of young children and that info would have influenced someone here. again the only thing I could see coming from there is the Parties need to get their security straightened out (or learn better than sending damming info across servers).

Depending on what information the hackers have, and if the CIA is telling the truth, then it poses problems for the presidency. If say Moscow had blackmail on Donald Trump for example, the electors need to know this information before they swear their votes in as the information coming out afterward makes it into one hell of a mess.

[Wells]

A) "Secret assessment" from sources. Same Washingtonpost that had to appended "Russians spreading Propaganda"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-findings.html

B) There is no CIA report, all it said is "secret assessment" no names, no evidences. All propaganda.

3) NYT puts out a fake news story that Russians hacked RNC. No sources/no evidence.

CIA are known liars. They got Americans killed.

"CIA are known liars who got Americans killed"

"We should believe the RNC when they say they weren't hacked"

Fucking pick one kid.

[Fadeslol]

https://www.threatconnect.com/blog/d...-in-the-woods/

All their proof is IP when you can use VPN to change your IP. Russia isn't stupid to use their servers.

- - - Updated - - -

"CIA are known liars who got Americans killed"

"We should believe the RNC when they say they weren't hacked"

Fucking pick one kid.

Ok so i call you a racist, you deny it. But according to you, you're a racist. I'm going to go pay 100k to put an article in the WSJ saying Wells from MMo-champion is a racist. That is News to you.

[Wells]

Ok so i call you a racist, you deny it. But according to you, you're a racist. I'm going to go pay 100k to put an article in the WSJ saying Wells from MMo-champion is a racist. That is News to you.

Which one is it dude. Do we trust liars or not? Because you're telling us we have to ignore CIA reports because they lie, but we have to take Reince fucking Priebus at his word.

[Fadeslol]

Note that Obama is claiming that he's going to make the information public right before he leaves office and wants full reports on the matter from all intelligence agencies and such. It's not just the CIA.

Either way the information comes out. The CIA, if they're telling the truth here, is trying to force the White House's hand and speed up the process to have the information released before the 19th as the situation becomes significantly more messy afterward.

You don't accuse Russia of getting involved in the election without EVIDENCE.

[Shadowmelded]

All their proof is IP when you can use VPN to change your IP. Russia isn't stupid to use their servers.

They specifically mention the use of a Russian VPN located in France among a whole slew of other data for example;

DC Leaks site was initially registered by THCServers, a company that has only been the initial registrar for 14 sites since 2013. Including DC Leaks, three of those sites have been connected to the Russian hackers believed to be behind the DNC hack, including a site identified by the German government.

The Russian hackers, nicknamed Fancy Bear, have a pattern of using domain registrars outside of United States that accept bitcoin and the Romanian THCServers fit the mold. It is registered to an email account from europe.com, which, like most of the emails connected to FancyBear, is a free web service based in Europe.

A representative from ThreatConnect, the company that linked Fancy Bear to DCLeaks, noted that the obscure Romanian THCServer and Europe.com would be abnormal for an American hacktivist collective, and believes the sum-total is a strong circumstantial case.

You're really grasping at straws here to not have to acknowledge you're mistaken.

[Dadwen]

Depending on what information the hackers have, and if the CIA is telling the truth, then it poses problems for the presidency. If say Moscow had blackmail on Donald Trump for example, the electors need to know this information before they swear their votes in as the information coming out afterward makes it into one hell of a mess.

I agree they need to look into what info was taken and how they got it but still I can't see it changing the election (you can't blackmail someone into winning the election). he still won, if they have blackmail info on him the CIA finding it would null it's usefulness out, but would not mean it didn't win and since he's not in power yet he's not in a place to have abused that power.

[Wells]

I don't think the WSJ would go through with that.

Fake news is whatever contradicts the RNC man.

[Bullettime]

You don't accuse Russia of getting involved in the election without EVIDENCE.

Except the CIA and even Congress have seen evidence. It's just not declassified for the public to see. The push by the CIA and Congress has been for Obama to declassify the documents so the public and electors can see them before the votes are cast in a week. Obama is claiming he won't do that until he sees a comprehensive report and only before he leaves office because he doesn't want to rock the boat. That's too late so the CIA is now claiming they'll take matters into their own hands.

IF the CIA are indeed telling the truth, we'll start seeing information bombs in the next week. If we don't, it either means the information is not as damning as it's being made out to be, or it is and Obama making it public when he plans on doing so will just turn it into a bigger shitstorm.

The CIA wants the information out NOW so it's an easier mess to clean up. The first leak is more of "hey Obama you better act fast buddy" and bringing public awareness to the problem.

[Vulgrym]

US senators were briefed but decided to not make this known because the GOP thought it'd be too explosive so close to the election and would seem partisan.
Mitch McConnell in particular doubted the intelligence community. The same Mitch McConnell who's wife is now in Trump's cabinet.

Meh, for those of us not in the US, it amazes how much news that would seem to matter is simply brushed aside so that a particular narrative could be reinforced. That's been one lesson from this whole fiasco - the truth really doesn't matter as people will rationalize things to whatever ideology they ascribe too and everything else is ignored. Everything is black and white. It's especially insane if you're from a country that has more than 2 political parties.

[Fadeslol]

Which one is it dude. Do we trust liars or not? Because you're telling us we have to ignore CIA reports because they lie, but we have to take Reince fucking Priebus at his word.

Washingtonpost said "Secret CIA assessment, no sources/evidences" THERE IS NO CIA REPORT, IT'S FAKE.
Even though 5 days ago, same fake media puts up a story that IT WAS THE RUSSIANS spreading fake news and had to retract it.

- - - Updated - - -

Fake news is whatever contradicts the RNC man.

Fakenews is making us have a civil war in the country because of the "Russians"

[Wells]

Washingtonpost said "Secret CIA assessment, no sources/evidences" THERE IS NO CIA REPORT, IT'S FAKE.
Even though 5 days ago, same fake media puts up a story that IT WAS THE RUSSIANS spreading fake news and had to retract it.

Not answering the question still.

Should we trust liars or not? Because either we need to trust the CIA or the NYT was right to publish against the RNC's statement.

Fakenews is making us have a civil war in the country because of the "Russians"

Your hyperbole is bad. And you define fake news by what the RNC says is true.

[Fadeslol]

I don't think the WSJ would go through with that.

Yes they would, u can pay to put information on their newspaper.

- - - Updated - - -

Not answering the question still.

Should we trust liars or not? Because either we need to trust the CIA or the NYT was right to publish against the RNC's statement.



Your hyperbole is bad.

Again, CIA never said it. Washingtonpost said "secret assessment" no sources/evidence. They are putting out fake news. You guys complain about fake news yet it's ok to put out fake news.

I don't give a fuck if the RNC said it never happened. You have no proof/evidences and you're putting out propaganda. It's state run American propaganda.

[Wells]

Again, CIA never said it. Washingtonpost said "secret assessment" no sources/evidence. They are putting out fake news. You guys complain about fake news yet it's ok to put out fake news.

WaPo is reporting on a CIA investigation.

I don't give a fuck if the RNC said it never happened.

Haha bullshit, you've used their denial to attack the NYT for pages now.


You're such a fucking hack. "CIA lies! Can't listen to them!, but also they didn't say anything! Also, listen to the RNC when they say stuff isn't true!"

[Fadeslol]

Except the CIA and even Congress have seen evidence. It's just not declassified for the public to see. The push by the CIA and Congress has been for Obama to declassify the documents so the public and electors can see them before the votes are cast in a week. Obama is claiming he won't do that until he sees a comprehensive report and only before he leaves office because he doesn't want to rock the boat. That's too late so the CIA is now claiming they'll take matters into their own hands.

IF the CIA are indeed telling the truth, we'll start seeing information bombs in the next week. If we don't, it either means the information is not as damning as it's being made out to be, or it is and Obama making it public when he plans on doing so will just turn it into a bigger shitstorm.

The CIA wants the information out NOW so it's an easier mess to clean up. The first leak is more of "hey Obama you better act fast buddy" and bringing public awareness to the problem.

Wrong, Congress never saw the evidence. They were "briefed" thats it. No evidence given.

[Snorkles]

I guess for a Conspiracy Theory to be truly legit it needs a billion random Youtube channels and an angry shouty radio host to ask you who controls your mind every 30 seconds.

[Fadeslol]

WaPo is reporting on a CIA investigation.



Haha bullshit, you've used their denial to attack the NYT for pages now.


You're such a fucking hack. "CIA lies! Can't listen to them!, but also they didn't say anything! Also, listen to the RNC when they say stuff isn't true!"

Wrong, there is no CIA investigation. They said "Secret assessment" no sources/no evidence.

NYTimes putting out fake news with no evidence or proof accusing people.

It's time to start a draft for the Left so when we have war with Russia, you guys only fight.